service entry question

[leadpencil]

hello all. i am an architect and some questions have arose as i help a client finish her remodel.

The service originally went to a semi-attached garage located on the south side of the property. The meter and panel were both located here, and wires were fed to the house through attached attic.

The client has redesinged the house and the new service panel will be located in the house, also on the south side of property.

The meter will be moved to the north side of the house , and wire will be run 40ft in an unfinished crawlspace to the new service panel. The power companies pole is on the north side of the property so it makes more sense to move to meter to the north side. We were also having issues in regards to clearance to house/windows if we put new meter on the south side. Suffice it to say the meter had to go on the north side

2 trusted electricians have given estimates in regards to the project. They are essentially the same with one exception.

electrician A wants to put a main breaker at the meter and treat the service panel as a sub panel. This is the costliest method as water mains etc etc are on the other side of the house. he says he must wire the panel differently.

electrician B does not wish to put a breaker at the meter. He wants to run the wire from the meter to the service panel. he says that it is an unfinished/unimproved crawlspace and the breaker at the meter is unneccasary.

In this part of the country inspections are done by private companies. Both of these gentleman have been in business many years, and have no doubt both could get there work approved. However the client is now worried that plan B while cheaper, is dangerous.

what do you think?

 

[Teaspoon]

hello all. i am an architect and some questions have arose as i help a client finish her remodel.

The service originally went to a semi-attached garage located on the south side of the property. The meter and panel were both located here, and wires were fed to the house through attached attic.

The client has redesinged the house and the new service panel will be located in the house, also on the south side of property.

The meter will be moved to the north side of the house , and wire will be run 40ft in an unfinished crawlspace to the new service panel. The power companies pole is on the north side of the property so it makes more sense to move to meter to the north side. We were also having issues in regards to clearance to house/windows if we put new meter on the south side. Suffice it to say the meter had to go on the north side

2 trusted electricians have given estimates in regards to the project. They are essentially the same with one exception.

electrician A wants to put a main breaker at the meter and treat the service panel as a sub panel. This is the costliest method as water mains etc etc are on the other side of the house. he says he must wire the panel differently.

electrician B does not wish to put a breaker at the meter. He wants to run the wire from the meter to the service panel. he says that it is an unfinished/unimproved crawlspace and the breaker at the meter is unneccasary.

In this part of the country inspections are done by private companies. Both of these gentleman have been in business many years, and have no doubt both could get there work approved. However the client is now worried that plan B while cheaper, is dangerous.

what do you think?

Electrician A is on target. You do not want unbreakered power in the crawl space.

 

[Sierrasparky]

As I recall the code section states "overcurrent device located adjacent to"

I suppose EC #2 could say this but I would not think it's advisable. You would not want unfused wires running under your house.

I have always done as # 1 suggested. I have seen many parts of the country wired like #2

 

[ultramegabob]

It would pass in my area if the service cable is visable the entire length of the run such as in an unfinished basement, but I would not install it that way, just I would do it as the first electrician is planning, it is a better install...

 

[augie47]

electrician B does not wish to put a breaker at the meter. He wants to run the wire from the meter to the service panel. he says that it is an unfinished/unimproved crawlspace and the breaker at the meter is unneccasary.

That would be rejected in this part of the woods.

 

[raider1]

That would be rejected in this part of the woods.

Agreed, that would not pass here either. 230.70(A)(1)

Chris

 

[pete m.]

I think that 230.70(A)(1) would be the applicable code section for this installation. The only way that I know to extend service conductors inside a building, sans overcurrent protection, is in accordance with 230.6.

Pete

 

[al hildenbrand]

The language of the National Electrical Code (NEC), governing the length of the unfused service entrance conductors that are installed within the envelope of the dwelling, does not specify a physical distance. This has given rise to a plethora of local variations on the basic theme.

The only meaningful info, for making this business decision, will come from your local power company (PoCo) and from the inspector that will be assigned to the property. Each has a different set of rules to apply, so the opinion of each must be gathered.

If both will approve Plan B, then that is acceptable for that dwelling.

What I "think" about whether A or B is dangerous is kind of off the subject.

I will say, that my PoCo and Inspectors limit the distance to five feet; and the NEC has clear language about what is "outside" an occupancy, and an unfinished crawl space is not included as outside.

 

[mh1990]

Considered outside?

Considered outside?

If the electrician B was able to get some underground piping in before addition was built could NEC 230-6 be used?
mh1990

 

[ultramegabob]

What I "think" about whether A or B is dangerous is kind of off the subject.

I disagree, the original question had to do with the customer being afraid that "B" was an unsafe install, just because somthing will pass or is legal because the code is vague on somthing doesnt make it assure that it is safe, only that it is code compliant. looking at both choices, I would say that "A" is a better choice when the question is which is a safer install...

 

[infinity]

If your jurisdiction follows the NEC Electrician B is in violation. Even if you can install it his way and pass inspection would you want a big violation installed if you lived there?

 

[Sierrasparky]

320.70 (A) (1) Readily Acessesble Location. The service disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or inside "nearest the point of entrance of the servicecoductors.

I would say as FACT that 40' away and 40' of wire run under a house is not the "nearest point of entrance.

Put the main outside and tell #2 to stop fouling the bid process, as it is not a code compliant installation if that state, or town is governed by the NEC 2002 and up!

 

[220/221]

Legal or not, I wouldn't install unfused conductors under a house.


Here, and in a lot of other locations, we are required to have a main disco outside. IMO it's a much better instalation.

 

[infinity]

Put the main outside and tell #2 to stop fouling the bid process, as it is not a code compliant installation if that state, or town is governed by the NEC 2002 and up!

Good point, if elec B didn't propose this poor installation we wouldn't be having this discussion. :roll:

 

[Sierrasparky]

Good point, if elec B didn't propose this poor installation we wouldn't be having this discussion. :roll:

The interesting point here is that the customer caught and suspected an issue. most times the customer goes for the lowest bid and feels the guy who wanted to install more equipment was just ripping them off.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I would say that "A" is a better choice when the question is which is a safer install...

How can one determine that without playing 20 Questions about the local Code approved practice.

If the service is SE cable strapped to wood siding. . . is there really a difference?

The local Authority Having Jurisdiction, applying any and all local amendments to the NEC, plus any requirements that the connecting power company invokes are the trump cards, IMO.

Local accepted installation are so varied, on this particular point of Code, that from this side of the computer screen, I can't determine when MY minimum requirement is actually creating stricter requirements for this OP's object of discussion than the local ordinance in effect at the OP's client's dwelling.

My point is, start with an informed understanding of the LOCAL minimum requirement.

If one wishes to purchase more than the minimum, for safety, for luxury, for fear, for whatever, then by all means do so.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I would say as FACT that 40' away and 40' of wire run under a house is not the "nearest point of entrance.

See, this is why knowing the local Codes & PoCo requirements really does have some importance.

UltraMegaBob, in his earlier post, if I am reading it correctly, states that in his locale, the unfused service entrance conductors CAN run 40' across even an unfinished basement before hitting the service disconnecting means.

 

[Sierrasparky]

How can one determine that without playing 20 Questions about the local Code approved practice.

If the service is SE cable strapped to wood siding. . . is there really a difference?

The local Authority Having Jurisdiction, applying any and all local amendments to the NEC, plus any requirements that the connecting power company invokes are the trump cards, IMO.

Local accepted installation are so varied, on this particular point of Code, that from this side of the computer screen, I can't determine when MY minimum requirement is actually creating stricter requirements for this OP's object of discussion than the local ordinance in effect at the OP's client's dwelling.

My point is, start with an informed understanding of the LOCAL minimum requirement.

If one wishes to purchase more than the minimum, for safety, for luxury, for fear, for whatever, then by all means do so.

Valid point. But it's not what somone can get a inspector to pass it's what is code compliant by the city. Most city county has ordinance or muni code that spells what books govern the city.
I really don't believe this part of the code leaves much room for interpretation.

The Architect here may have a responsibility to the customer letting them know # is not code compliant. Regardless if the inspector passes it.

Here in CA the inspector could pass almost anything without having to worry about being wrong. It is ultimately the responsibility of the contractor to be code complaint and usually sole responsibility.

 

[ultramegabob]

UltraMegaBob, in his earlier post, if I am reading it correctly, states that in his locale, the unfused service entrance conductors CAN run 40' across even an unfinished basement before hitting the service disconnecting means.

that is how they interpet the code, I dont agree with it, and I choose not to install it that way.

 

[al hildenbrand]

that is how they interpet the code, I dont agree with it, and I choose not to install it that way.

I totally understand.